What Caught My Eye Today - Citizenship, Debt, Water, Electoral College

Citizenship - Born in Canada to an American mother, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz became an instant U.S. citizen. But under Canadian law, he also became a citizen of that country the moment he was born. Unless the Texas Republican senator formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries. Now why would he want to do that? It seems pretty rare, that one has the good fortune of being born into dual citizenship. That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. Even better. If dude loses or hits term limits in the U.S., he can continue to feed his political ambitions north of the border. And yet, I sense a disturbance in the Force on this one. The circumstances of Cruz’s birth have fueled a simmering debate over his eligibility to run for president. Knowingly or not, dual citizenship is an apparent if inconvenient truth for the Tea Party firebrand, who shows every sign he’s angling for the White House. Uh-oh. The U.S. Constitution allows only a “natural born” American citizen to serve as president. Most legal scholars who have studied the question agree that includes an American born overseas to an American parent, such as Cruz. The Constitution says nothing about would-be presidents born with dual citizenship. Yeah, those Tea Partiers are real sticklers for that sort of thing. Just ask the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Detractors have derided Cruz as “Canadian Ted,” saying he can’t run for president because he wasn’t born on U.S. soil. How much do you want to bet that behind closed doors, President Obama is having a pretty good chuckle over this? Cruz said he would be the $100 fee to renounce his Canadian citizenship, saying, "Nothing against Canada, but I'm an American by birth, and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American." The way I heard it, Canadian officials were so elated that they offered to pay the $100 on Cruz's behalf.

Debt - Stop me if you've heard this one before. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew told Congress that the government will run out of money to pay its bills in mid-October unless lawmakers raise the country's borrowing limit, which is capped at $16.7 trillion. Oh good grief, not this again. Earlier this year, Congress temporarily suspended the borrowing limit so lawmakers could focus on other budget debates. Treasury has kept the government operating for several months through its bookkeeping maneuvers. The government is spending more than it takes in, running up annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion in each of the past four budget years. It has been borrowing the difference to meet its obligations. Republicans want to reduce future deficits by cutting back sharply on spending. Interesting concept--don't spend what you don't have. Sounds so simple doesn't it? Democrats have proposed a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, which Republicans strongly oppose. Congress last passed legislation to increase the borrowing limit in the summer of 2011 after a months-long negotiation between President Barack Obama and top lawmakers. Republicans forced Obama to accept about $2 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade in exchange for a like-sized increase in the borrowing limit. Many Republicans want to use upcoming budget deadlines to mount an assault on Obama's signature health care law. In general, I'm a fiscal conservative, so why am I not jumping up and down in support of what the Republican Party is proposing? For one thing, there are basic economic principles that are being completely ignored (which I won't bore you with). In addition, the Republican party really needs to stop pouting about Obamacare. The law passed. Get over it! They aren't doing themselves or the people that they represent any favors by holding the budge hostage over a legislative battle that was wages years ago.

Water - Looking for investment opportunities to give a boost to your retirement portfolio? I have two words for you...Water Futures. Of course, the future of water in the United States doesn't look too bright, but as everyone knows, where there is misery for the many, there is opportunity for the few. Nearly 70% of the groundwater stored in parts of the United States' High Plains Aquifer, a vast underground reservoir that stretches through eight states, from South Dakota to Texas, and supplies 30% of the nation's irrigated groundwater, could be used up within 50 years, unless current water use is reduced. For those of you not well-versed in such things, groundwater is pretty much what we consume and use to irrigate our crops.  In a nutshell, no more water, means no more food. No more food would seriously curtail humanity's long-term existence. Then again, we'd die from lack of water, way before starvation kicked in.  Bottom line, this is a problem worthy of some attention. If current irrigation trends continue unabated, 69% of the available groundwater will be drained in the next five decades. 3% of the aquifer's water was used up by 1960; 30% of the aquifer's water was drained by 2010; and a whopping 69 percent of the reservoir will likely be tapped by 2060. It would take an average of 500 to 1,300 years to completely refill the High Plains Aquifer. I suppose there is some upside here.  Sure we'll dry up in next 30 or 40 years, but if we can figure out how to exist without water for the next few centuries, our aquifers will be fully replenished.  See? Glass half full.

Electoral College - Here's an interesting take on reforming the U.S. Electoral College from a dude who clearly has a bit of time on his hands. Don't mistake what I'm saying as criticism. Quite the opposite. I have nothing but admiration and, I daresay, a fair bit of envy, that this guy can take on such an undertaking, assuming that he has an actual day job that pays him actual money for done actual work. The electoral college is a time-honored, logical system for picking the chief executive of the United States. However, the American body politic has also grown accustomed to paying close attention to the popular vote. This is only rarely a problem, since the electoral college and the popular vote have only disagreed three times in 200 years. However, it's obvious that reforms are needed. The fundamental problem of the electoral college is that the states of the United States are too disparate in size and influence. The largest state is 66 times as populous as the smallest and has 18 times as many electoral votes. This increases the chance for Electoral College results that don't match the popular vote. To remedy this issue, the Electoral Reform Map redivides the fifty United States into 50 states of equal population. The 2010 Census records a population of 308,745,538 for the United States, which this map divides into 50 states, each with a population of about 6,175,000. It's a pretty cool map (click here). Among the advantages of such a proposal:

• Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College.
  What with the Electoral College being established in the Constitution, I guess that's a good thing.
• Ends the over-representation of small states and under-representation of large states in presidential voting and in the US Senate by eliminating small and large states.
  As long as Iowa is no longer the center of the political universe for months on end, I am totally on board with this.
• Ends varying representation in the House. Currently, the population of House districts ranges from 528,000 to 924,000.
  Being a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area, I live in a district on the high end of that range, which basically means my vote is counts for much less than the vote of a resident of Wyoming.

Here's my only gripe. Let's say we re-draw the U.S. as proposed. I would no longer live in California, but rather Yerba Buena. Dude, I don't want to live in Yerba Buena.

Did You Know? #37

What and where is the largest volcano on Earth?

The largest volcano on earth is Mauna Loa on Hawaii's Big Island. It is a massive shield volcano constructed by countless lava flows. When measured from the base to the top, the pile of lavas measures more than 56,000 ft! When measured from the sea floor, Mauna Loa's height is 29,527 ft., thus it is also the highest mountain on earth. . Mauna Loa is one of the Earth's most active volcanoes, with 33 well-documented eruptions in historic times since 1843. Its last eruption was in 1984 and since 2004, Mauna Loa is showing increasing signs of a possible awakening in a not-too-distant future.

Fred's Note:  The inspiration for this particular question came from an article I read about little know facts about Hawaii.  So in addition to being home to the world's largest volcano, did you know...

• The Hawaiian language has only a 13-letter alphabet and every word (and syllable) ends with one of five vowels.
• Hawaii is the only U.S. state that grows coffee, cacao, and vanilla beans.
• Hawaii has the highest life expectancy in the United States at 81.3 years.
• The state gem isn't a gem at all. Black coral is technically an animal.
• Hawaii is one of four states that outlaws billboards. (The others are Alaska, Maine, and Vermont.)
• Snakes are outlawed in Hawaii. The only legal serpents are housed in zoos.

Did You Know #36

Which U.S. city has the worst traffic congestion?

After being replaced by Honolulu for a year, Los Angeles once again earned the title of the most congested metro area in the country. Four of the 10 most congested corridors last year were in the Los Angeles area.  The rest of the top ten are:

2. Honolulu, HI (I can personally attest to the fact that this ranking is well deserved)
3. San Franciso, CA
4. Austin, TX
5. New York, NY
6. Bridgeport, CT
7. San Jose, CA (Always nice to see my hometown make the headlines)
8. Seattle, WA
9. Washington DC
10. Boston, MA

What Caught My Eye Today - Winter Olympics, Nicaragua, Global Warming, Potpourri

Winter Olympics - An online petition has been started to to move the 2014 Winter Olympics from Sochi, Russia, to Vancouver, Canada. For those of you who don't remember, Vancouver hosted the most recent edition in 2010.  I'm guess most of those facilities are still in working order. The petition has proposed Vancouver as an alternative to Sochi in light of Russia’s increasingly oppressive treatment of gays, both legally and culturally. The target is 150,000 signatures. Really, that's it? Seems to me this is little more than a political statement, rather than a serious attempt to actually re-locate the Games to Canada. which, short of a nuclear incident, is never going to happen. Russia’s crackdown on gay rights, which includes a prohibition on “propaganda” in support of “nontraditional” sexual orientation, has resulted in ever-louder calls for countries such as the United States to boycott the games. Personally, I think this is an admirable cause, but realistically we'd have a better chance of boycotting the games due to Russia granting asylum to Edward Snowden. Meanwhile, other observers complain that sitting out not only would be a disservice to the athletes who have trained for years, but it also would fail to encourage a productive alternative that actively confronts Russia's treatment of gays. Yet again, I'm baffled by this inexplicably fear of same-sex relationships.  It's not like this is a contagious disease. If someone doesn't want to play for your team, do you really think forcing them to stay is going to make your team perform any better? I think not.

Nicaragua - Here's a follow up to an item I posted a couple months back (click here). Nicaragua’s political opposition filed a Supreme Court challenge to the Sandinista government’s hastily approved canal law, arguing that the generous concession granted to an unknown Chinese firm violates 15 articles of the constitution, including national sovereignty. The law was passed last June along party lines, by a vote of 61 to 25. The Supreme Court challenge might be the least of the problems facing the proposed $40 billion canal project. Interesting. I was sort of curious if it was possible to put a price tag on national sovereignty.  It appears, in this particular case, the answer is yes to the tune of $40 billion. Despite spending big bucks on high-powered consulting firms and public relations efforts, the newly formed canal company, HKND Group, still struggles to be taken seriously. So the opposition party doesn't know who these guys are. Big deal. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Nothing to worry about...right?  At the company's first press conference, reporters were presented with a wildly distorted map of Nicaragua, which appeared to trace a canal route passing from Lake Nicaragua into Lake Managua, dead-ending in the capital city, about 30 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Maybe the map wasn't drawn to scale. In a subsequent interview, the company described a more carefully laid out route of the canal, starting in the Caribbean port town of Bluefields and winding to a Pacific outlet in Brito, which also came as a surprise to Nicaraguans, who were just told by President Daniel Ortega that the canal’s route will be determined by the results of a two-year feasibility and environmental-impact study. Who's to say the feasibility study won't match the route that the company has laid out?  I for one applaud, their can-do attitude. Most recently, the company said it was "100 percent sure” canal construction would start at the end of 2014 and be completed by 2019. That means the largest and most expensive infrastructure project in the history of Central America will be built in five years – even faster than Panama’s current $5.3 billion canal expansion, which pales in comparison in scope and cost. Okay, this one is a bit tougher, but I'm game to give it a try. Just because the feasibility study won't be completed until 2015, doesn't necessarily mean you can't start digging. We all know the canal has to start somewhere on the Pacific. Granted, we're still a bit vague on where the canal will end up on the other side, but that's no reason not to get started. As for the time frame, how do you know how long it will take to build if you don't try and... Yeah, I think I'm going to stop now. This deal is a train wreck of epic proportions and the train hasn't even left the station yet.. 

Global Warming - Yet another groundbreaking study has been released announcing that the most brilliant minds in their field have figured out what us simpletons have known all along. A massive new study finds that aggressive acts like committing violent crimes and waging war become more likely with each added degree. Researchers analyzed studies on historic empire collapses, recent wars and violent crime rates and found a common thread over centuries: Extreme weather - very hot or dry - means more violence. So what they are saying is that extreme events, like drought, can have an adverse impact on civilizations, which could lead to extreme things like war or extinction.  Who could possibly have imagined that, I mean other than anyone who has every read a history book? Economists have created a formula that predicts how much the risk of different types of violence should increase with extreme weather. In war-torn parts of equatorial Africa, it says, every added degree Fahrenheit or so increases the chance of conflict between groups -- in the form of rebellion, war, civil unrest -- by 11% to 14%. Global temperature averages are expected to increase by about 3.6 degrees in the next half-century which implies a 40% to 50% greater chance for African wars than it would be without global warming. For the United States, the formula says that for every increase of 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, due primarily to increases in carbon dioxide pollution,  the likelihood of violent crime goes up 2% to 4%. Another startling revelation. It seems that extreme weather has more of an impact on under-developed nations as opposed to fully developed nations. I don't know about you, but my mind is completely blown away by this.

Potpourri - More conversation starters for that dinner party where topics that might actually be relevant just aren't hitting the mark.

• Disease - To date, mankind has managed to eradicate just one human disease, smallpox, but polio's days are numbered. I would have thought, that we would have conquered more than one disease by now, what with our success in killing off so many other species. While most of the world is polio-free, the disease still lurks in areas of Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. New cases have plummeted by 99% since 1988, thanks to a vaccine that costs just 14 cents per dose.  At the current rate, wild polio-viruses are expected to be extinct by the end of 2018. Along with approximately 50,000 other species (assuming the current rate of .01%).
• Tomatoes - The age old question of whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable has a rather complex answer.  Botanically, tomatoes are fruits, but legally they are vegetables. Well that clear things up, doesn't it? In 1883, Congress instituted a 10% tariff on imported vegetables. A dispute on whether or not the tax should be collected ended up in the Supreme Court.  The plaintiff tried to persuade the Court by reading dictionary definitions of fruit, vegetable and tomato, while the defense countered that in matters of commerce and trad, tomatoes were really vegetables. The justices sided with the defense saying that while tomatoes were technically fruits, they were inevitably served "at dinner in with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert."  Makes total sense if you think about it. The plaintiff's argument was doomed from the beginning. What idiot relies on fact to justify his position?
• Information -  Digital data is stored as binary ones and zeroes, and the ones create data by holding electrons in place. Since a electron has mass (a whooping .00000000000000000000000000000009 kilogram), one could argue that data has mass. Based on this premise, a Harvard physicist decided to calculate the weight of the world's digital data. Adding up every scrap of data on the Interest (at the time), the world's digital information weighed in at just under two ounces.  And we wonder why physicists get stereotyped as nerds.